Egebjerg v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(A) whether the debtor filed the petition in bad faith; or (B) the totality of the circumstances (including whether the debtor seeks to reject a personal services contract and the financial need for such rejection as sought by the debtor) of the debtor’s financial situation demonstrates abuse.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Ricci · In Re Hageney

2. “(a) The court may dismiss a case under this chapter only after notice and a hearing and only for cause, including— (1)unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors; (2) nonpayment of any fees or charges required under chapter 123 of title 28; and (3) failure of the debtor in a voluntary case to file, within fifteen days or such additional time as the court may allow after the filing of the petition commencing such case, the information required by paragraph (1) of section 521, but only on a motion by the United States trustee. (b) After notice and a hearing, the court, on its own motion or on a motion by the United States trustee, but not -at the request or suggestion of any party in interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under this chapter whose debts are primarily consumer debts if it finds that the granting of relief would be a substantial abuse of the provisions of this chapter. There shall be a presumption in favor of granting the relief requested by the debtor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Lopez

3. “Prior to BAPCPA, there was a presumption “in favor of granting the relief requested by the Debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 707 (b) (2004). This presumption could be overcome if the court found that “granting of relief would be a substantial abuse” of Chapter 7. ... BAPCPA produced a sea change. There is now no presumption favoring Chapter 7 relief, but an emphasis on repaying creditors as much as possible. H.R.Rep. No. 109-31, pt.l at 2 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 89. (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Stubblefield